Ask Question

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that questions may not be answered immediately and are filed for future retrieval, which is useful. However, it does not state whether the tool has side effects (e.g., creating a record), whether it is read-only, or any authentication or rate-limit considerations. The filing behavior hints at mutation but is not explicit.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and adds the key behavioral nuance about filing unanswered questions. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the main behavior (answer from vault or file for future). It lacks explicit mention of side effects or whether it is safe to call repeatedly, but given the presence of an output schema, return format is covered. Overall, it is adequate but not exhaustive.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. The single parameter 'question' is self-explanatory as a string, but the description adds no detail about format, length, language, or constraints. Given the low coverage, the description fails to add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already trivially provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('Ask') and resource ('the librarian'), and specifies the behavior: answered from the vault when possible, otherwise filed as an automated question. This distinguishes it from the note-focused sibling tools like search_notes, which have a different purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context for when to use this tool (when you have a question that might be answered from the vault) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like search_notes or give any 'use instead' guidance. It implies a distinct role but leaves exclusions to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.